A case is now percolating through the Illinois courts that may have implications on whether perpetrators of online deception can be sued for damages.
The case is Paula Bonhomme v. Janna St. James. Bonhomme lives in Los Angeles. She is a fan of the TV show Deadwood, and back in 2005, joined a chat room about the show. There she met St. James.
St. James eventually introduced Bonhomme, online, to a man by the name of Jesse. Bonhomme and Jesse exchanged emails, phone calls and handwritten notes, and their relationship blossomed into a romance. Jesse introduced Bonhomme to his family and friends via email. Bonhomme sent gifts to Jesse and his family. They planned a future together, and decided that Bonhomme should move from Los Angeles to Jesse’s home in Colorado.
Then suddenly, Jesse died of liver cancer. In Jesse’s memory, Bonhomme went to Colorado to visit some of his favorite places, accompanied by the woman who had introduced her to Jesse—Janna St. James.
But there was a problem: None of it was real.
Janna St. James made up the Jesse character, along with all 20 of his friends and family. She created an entire web of deceit, and snared Paula Bonhomme. She actually used voice-altering technology, so when they spoke on the phone, St. James sounded like a man.
Bonhomme spent money on gifts. She bought Jesse airline tickets and made changes to her home in preparation for his visits, which never materialized. In all, the charade cost Bonhomme about $10,000, including $5,000 for therapy after the emotional devastation of Jesse’s “death.”
Finally, Bonhomme’s friends, worried about the amount of time she was spending online, confronted St. James and exposed the fraud. They captured it on video, which is posted on YouTube.
Read ”˜Fake’ online love affair becomes legal battle on ABCNews.go.com.
Watch the YouTube video, St. James exposed.
Taking it to court
Bonhomme filed a complaint against Janna St. James in Illinois court in February 2008. The court dismissed her case. She filed a motion to reconsider in 2009, which was also dismissed. Then her attorneys filed an appeal.
Bonhomme’s complaint stated that St. James St. James committed fraudulent misrepresentation. The elements of this claim are:
- A false statement of material fact
- Knowledge or belief of the falsity by the party making it
- Intention to induce the plaintiff to act
- Action by the plaintiff in justifiable reliance on the truth of the statement
- Damage to the plaintiff resulting from that reliance
The problem with the original case apparently was that a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation was historically recognized only in business or financial transactions. The court had previously declined to consider fraudulent misrepresentation in noncommercial or nonfinancial dealings between parties.
Also, the defendant’s attorneys argued that St. James engaged in fiction, not a misrepresentation of facts, and that “the concepts of falsity and material fact do not apply in the context of fiction, because fiction does not purport to represent reality.”
The original trial court apparently bought that argument, but the appeals court did not. The appeals court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the case, and sent it back for further proceedings.
The actual court opinion is interesting and mostly easy to read. Check it out: Appellate Court of Illinois— Paula Bonhomme v. Janna St. James.
Blame the victim
The appellate court decision wasn’t, however, unanimous. One of the justices dissented, writing:
The reality of the Internet age is that an online individual may not always be—and indeed frequently is not—who or what he or she purports to be. The plaintiff’s reliance on the defendant’s alleged misrepresentations, in deciding to spend $10,000 on Christmas gifts for people who allegedly lived in another state and whom she had never met, was not justifiable. The plaintiff also cannot be said to have justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentations in incurring expenses to move to another state to live with someone she had never met in person and who had cancelled a previous face-to-face meeting after she had purchased nonrefundable airline tickets.
In other words, the dissenting justice blamed the victim for being dumb enough to fall for the scam.
Kirk Sigmon, a blogger for the Cornell Law School, also thought the appellate court decision was a bad idea. He argued that “the world is full of misleading statements and ”˜puffery,’” and Bonhomme v. St. James could set a precedent that made Internet users responsible for telling the truth. This, Sigmon seemed to imply, was an imposition.
This holding has the potential to cause serious problems for Internet users. At least according to the Bonhomme court’s logic, many individuals may be liable for expenses incurred as a result of someone’s reliance upon their virtual representations. Mindless banter in chatrooms could now create legal liabilities. If courts apply a similar logic to negligent misrepresentation cases, even careless statements made on websites could give rise to litigation so long as plaintiffs can prove intent and harm. In theory, every user of the Internet is now subjected to an implied duty of truthfulness or due care in the representations they make when interacting with others online.
The blogger argued that allowing a complaint of fraudulent misrepresentation arising from personal dealings, rather than just commercial dealings, “threatens the very freedom that makes the Internet so attractive.”
Read The wild, wild web and alter egos, on CornellFedSoc.org.
Wrong but not illegal
I am troubled by the judge’s dissent, which blames the victim, and the Cornell blogger’s apparent opinion that the freedom of the Internet must include the freedom to lie, no matter how destructive it is to another individual.
The actions of Janna St. James were clearly reprehensible. They were morally wrong. This woman did not engage in “social puffery.” She set out to purposely deceive Paula Bonhomme, apparently just to amuse herself. Unfortunately, she succeeded, and Bonhomme was damaged.
Not only that, but St. James had a history of pulling this scam. Since this case became public, Bonhomme was contacted by at least five other women who were similarly victimized by St. James, in fake letters going back to the 1980s.
So why is it so difficult for Paula Bonhomme to get justice? I think the problem is the very structure of our legal system. Even when an action is clearly wrong, if it doesn’t violate a law, nothing can be done. The law hasn’t kept up with the technology, and the law, like most of society, doesn’t understand the maliciousness of sociopaths.
I hope Bonhomme makes out better in her next court go-round. In any event, I applaud her for even pursuing the case. If we want to make changes, and hold sociopaths accountable, we have to start somewhere.
Story suggested by a Lovefraud reader.
Sky, interesting post. I believe there IS a way to be impervious to love-bombing, and that is to be able to love-bomb ourselves, so to speak. When we really know deep down how lovable and great we are, we don’t get so hooked in by someone else telling us this stuff. It SHOULD feel good to receive a compliment without being addicted to those compliments. I believe that if we truly love ourselves, we can receive a sincere compliment and appreciate it, without being suspicious that it is love-bombing. Perhaps it will just confirm what we already know about ourselves. I think the problem is that when we came from a family that did not give us that kind of acknowledgement, it’s as if we need to hear it from the outside. We are still hooked into trying to get the love we never got from our parents. We can give this kind of love to ourselves, so we don’t need to get it from the outside.
When someone I meet starts to love bomb me, I BACK WAYYYYY up! I don’t even let it feel good, because I know it is phony.
QUOTE STAR:I think the problem is that when we came from a family that did not give us that kind of acknowledgement, it’s as if we need to hear it from the outside. We are still hooked into trying to get the love we never got from our parents. We can give this kind of love to ourselves, so we don’t need to get it from the outside.
Very good, Star….and I have always seemed to be seeking outside validation for what kind of person I am, and if I didn’t score 100% A+ then I wasn’t “good enough” I thought. Now, I don’t let others judge me, either for the good or the bad parts of me. I also realize I can have some faults and still be GOOD ENOUGH and that trying to be “perfect” is a futile pursuit to start with, and narcissistic as well.
There are some folks in my living history group that I don’t particularly care for and there are folks there that I truly consider friends….but those people that I consider psychopaths, and there are those….we had one show up this past week that I hadn’t seen in years, in fact, probably 8-9 years ago….he makes his living actually selling clothing and gear to reenactors and travels around from event to event. He was run out of our five state region when he honed in on a well loved lady whose husband had died. He “offered to help” her—well,, help her out of everything she owned. He went to prison. Well he is back now in our area, and apparently has been thrown out of the western group after pretending to be “raising money” for Viet Nam vets….which of course went in his pocket.
Everyone likes his poor wife and his 3 kids, who are virtual slaves to him. We called the sheriff but the warrants out on him from another state are not extriditeable. They are for child abuse.
We passed the word around to the other eventers who might not have known him or what he is, so he didn’t get any business from anyone in our group, but we actually couldn’t keep him from selling to the public, but the public who came to visit actually doesn’t buy much except some cheap home made jewelry or wooden toys for the kids so I doubt that he made gas money to get to the event. Maybe he won’t come back. It’s a public park, so there’s no way we can actually keep him from coming and setting up shop. On private land leased by the group we can refuse admission to anyone. Plus at some of the bigger multi-state encampments, there are a lot of members who are FBI, DEA, INS, State troopers, local police, etc so we do not have any problems with bad behavior in camp. We also appoint “dog soldiers” who are members of the group with the authority to make someone leave or behave….that’s one of the things I like about the group, is that even the psychopaths USUALLY “behave” in this group.
Constantine and Star,
Love bombing alone won’t reel me in. Sometimes these people are also witty, intellectually stimulating, charming, charismatic etc..everything you’d want in a friend. Hard to resist that, even when you see the red flags.
For me, the key is in how I process these relationships. I already know they can never invest emotionally the way that I tend to do, so rather than invest in a relationship with these people, I simply give to it, without expectation of return. I give the amount of myself that it makes me happy to give and if there is no return, that is fine because I never expected any.
I have no problem with that. The weird part is how much I actually “like” these people, despite knowing that when they reciprocate, it’s a shallow facsimile of friendship.
I guess it’s like going to a movie and enjoying the show, admiring the characters, feeling the drama and letting your emotions go for a ride, even while you know that it’s not real and it’s going to end in 2 hours. For that time, while in contact with this charming, vivacious, disordered person, you suspend your disbelief and happily munch on popcorn. Just make sure it wasn’t poisoned.
Sky, I recall having a few characters in my past – men I’ve dated – whom I considered very powerful, magnetic, and charismatic. They were healers and teachers and always seemed to have a following. I looked up to them and thought they were so great, and I felt honored that they graced me with their attention. I realized over the years that the qualities I was so drawn to in them were the qualities I have not acknowledged within myself. I am also charming, charismatic, and powerful. But I haven’t realized it. I have a memory of being chosen to lead the class when I was in 6th grade in sociological type of game. I was always shy and retiring in school, afraid even to look people in the eye. But I took over as a great leader that day. I chose teams and led a debate and engaging philosophical discussion. I felt energized and powerful. I will never forget that my mother came and interrupted me to take me out of school to run some errand with her. The class all booed because they wanted me to lead the exercise. It doesn’t surprise me that my mother ruined my moment of glory, but that’s a whole other story……The point is that this leadership potential has always been inside of me, but rarely ever came out.
So as an adult, I was drawn to these people who were manifesting those qualities. I don’t think these qualities in and of themselves make someone a sociopath. It’s their motives and how they use those qualities. There are many charming and charismatic people who use their gifts for the good of other people.
Star, I understand that the charisma isn’t what makes these people “toxic”. I think we can be charismatic and not be toxic. But there are those, whom I have met, that are both. So I will allow myself some interaction with them but always knowing that the red flags are significant and meaningful. In other words, just because they are really nice or really interesting doesn’t give them a free pass on being disordered and imposing on my life. Boundaries are so important.
Most people are attracted to leaders – it’s natural for a social species.
Spaths will often appear as leaders too. There is one way to know if it’s a spath or a true leader: responsibility. A true leader takes power and responsibility, together. They realize that the two must not be separated. Spaths, on the other hand, despise having to take responsibility. It’s a huge red flag.
Sky, I think you explained that very well, sort of like suspending belief so you can enjoy a movie or a play. I get that, and the giving no more than I am willing to give without any possibility of return.
That is the way I loan people money….without any expectation that it will be repaid. If I don’t get it back it isn’t a large enough amount that there is a problem, if I do get it back, then the person has raised themselves in my esteem. I never loan out more than I can afford to lose though, under any circumstances.
There are people that I think are very entertaining to be around under “arm’s length” rules….but I also find that if a person is “known to me” to be a creep, dishonest, cheating, lying sack of shait, I don’t seem to “enjoy” their company even if they are “charming” and “entertaining.”
Sort of like how Ted Bundy was a “great friend” when he wasn’t raping and killing women. I just don’t have the stomach to be around people I know are dishonest and toxic…I’d much rather be around people who are honest, kind, compassionate and good. I am uplifted by the good people and I feel slimed in the presence of toxic folks.
Ox there is so much truth n what you just said.
I am uplifted by good people.
I don’t enjoy liars or cheaters.
I don’t want to be like that, or near that type of person.
Sky, I think I get what you are saying. I have a group of neighbors who are toxic. I see them at the pool and goof around with them (they are fun), but I keep a distance. I observe them too. But unlike your toxic people who can make you feel good, these people don’t make me feel good. I always get the feeling of not being “seen” around them. They are narcissists.
@everyone,
this conversation began because Constantine said it would be interesting to spend time observing my ex-spath and we were discussing what he might observe.
I turned the conversation into what a person would “feel” in the presence of spaths. The cog/diss evolves because we often DON’T feel bad at all. We feel good.
Certain spaths make you feel bad. My spath sis and the trojan horse make me want to take a shower to get clean from their slime. They always have, even before I knew what they were. Their shallowness shines right through. But other spaths have the uncanny ability to mirror us and make us FEEL good. It is only by careful and OBJECTIVE observation of the red flags that we can AND MUST come to terms with the reality of what we are observing. It’s very very difficult because most of our thinking comes first through feeling and then interpretation of that feeling.
This is critical because the truly evil spath makes SURE to make you feel good before he slams you down. It is part of putting you on a pedestal so you have further to fall. Your happiness is very important to him because he wants to see the look on your face when he takes it away. Remember, Ted Bundy used the pity ploy. He made these women feel GOOD because they were being helpful and good Samaritans, that’s when he hit them on the head with his crutches.
One of the reasons I allow myself to interact with people who show red flags is because I want to observe myself in that situation. What I’ve observed is that my heart doesn’t harden, as you would expect. Perhaps it should, but now I know that it doesn’t, I still see them as human.
The way I talk on this blog, it would seem like I treat all spaths like dirt and not human, but the reality is that when I meet one, my heart still sees them as human. I’m very glad to be aware of that because it’s simply a matter of not allowing my heart to take the lead. My mind respects the red flags, they have been infallible for 2 years. Not once have the red flags failed to predict with accuracy. My heart can think what it wants.
Hi All,
I googled my spaths name and she lives about a 1/2 mile away from me. She has positioned herself exactly in the middle of my home and work. I drive by her apt. daily. I don’t know how long she has lived there. I am afraid of her because of what she did and got away with.
After we moved away from her, I thought I’d never run into her again. We lived a half hour away from where we live now. And now she’s here. UGH. I got all in a tizzy last night with my husband. I told him I’m afraid of her, she robbed us, we left our place after 15 years, she got evicted, and now here she is again right in my path of work and home.
I went to therapy cause I was afraid to go to the supermarket by myself, husband always had to be with me. Talk about relying on intuition (sp). I never knew how close she was until about a week ago.
I’m afraid of her..as I should be. She totally fu**ed up my life. I’m just scared right now cause she is soooo close. WTF?? Oh, yeah, I hate her too.